Confidence intervals are not accurate here
 

[ QUOTE ]
With an SD of 30BB/100 hands ... interval is 2.8BB/100 at a 99.7% confidence... So the math tells us that he is likely a winner... it'll take more than some bad beat stories and a few hand histories before I'll write DERB of as a fluke.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi rigolleto,

Your math is off here, but it's subtle why it's wrong. The problem is the way you've selected the "random variable" to analyze.

Basically, there are hundreds, maybe thousands of guys with stats like DERB. All of these random variables have been sampled over and over, and then the very best performing one has been chosen and singled out. There is a huge selection bias here, so that it is extremely likely that DERB is in fact way on the high side of the variance. Since the confidence interval calculation you are making assumes it's equally likely he is on the high side as on the low side, it's invalid.

To give you a clearer picture, imagine you flipped a large number of pennies ten thousand times each. You record the results. Then you pick out the penny that came up heads most often and run a confidence interval analysis on it. You'll find that this analysis suggests it's extremely likely that this penny comes up heads more often than tails. Maybe it'll suggest that this penny is 99.7% likely to be weighted toward heads, to not be a fair coin. Obviously, this is not the case.

To make another analogy, it would be like taking any random bad player, and then throwing out 10% of the hands in which he did the worst. Oh look, he's a huge winner now. Yeah, of course.

In light of this, anecdotal evidence suggesting that DERB is bad is all you should need to be confident he is not a winner and is simply the luckiest player at party. This sounds unlikely until you remember how we chose this guy... we searched the database for the most ridiculous stats / win combination. Of course, this is likely to correspond to the luckiest guy.

To get a better idea of how DERB's true win rate, lump all the players with similar stats to his together and run a confidence interval analysis on the results. To get an even better idea, track his NEXT 100,000 hands or whatever, now that you've singled him out and do a confidence interval analysis on those hands. That's his true win rate.


Good luck.
Eric

Re: WHAT IS DERBS SCREENAME ON PP???
 

I hate this thread so much I don't know why I'm posting in it but anyway...

Without writing a novel, Justin A is correct. If you simply take his win rate and SD you are ignoring selection bias. To get the best approximation, you must use all available information. This not only includes win rate, SD, and a Z-table, but also includes the more fuzzy idea that this player is being examined because of his win rate in the first place, and the anecdotal evidence that he plays like players who lose. If you have 1,000 players who play the same, one of them will have a higher win rate than the rest, and this will be significantly higher than the average. If you look at the sample of 1,000 and choose the highest win rate and then try to reverse engineer his true win rate using a confidence interval, you are going to get a very wrong answer because you are ignoring the information that he plays the same as the other 1,000 players. Of course this is not a direct analogy because no players play exactly the same, but you are making the same mistake as someone who chooses a mutual fund that showed a huge profit in the past year. If you put enough monkeys in front of enough typewriters, eventually one will type HPFAP. If, after this, you select the one who does and claim he is Mason Malmuth, you are of course wrong. Or are you? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: WHAT IS DERBS SCREENAME ON PP???
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We're doing the same here with DERB. His stats were chosen because of the bizarre results, therefore we cannot use confidence intervals to figure out whether or not he is a winning player. I hope all that made sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to disagree. Your objection would be true if we had say 1,000,000 hands with DERB and picked a 100K series out of them because this series was bizarre. But the fact that we chose to isolate all the hands where DERB was at the table doesn't bias HIS stats.

You analogy is flawed because you are assuming that each player can be represented by the same coin. A more true analogy is to make 1000 cointosses with 1000 coins and the result is say 500,152/499,848. You record all tosses and what coin they where made with. Now you isolate your sample to a specific coin and find that the result for this coin is 611/389. You now have good reason to suspect that this particular coin is different from the others because the 1000 tosses with this coin can statistically be treated as a seperate event.

Let me try my own analogy: let say we randomly sample 4000 people and ask them who they would vote for as president Andyfox or Ed Miller and the result came back 50/50. Now we pick a subset, say ages 18-30, and for this subset the result is 30/70. Just because we picked a subset it doesn't mean that the sample is not random anymore; it is a random sample within the universe of 18-30 year olds. Just as hands with DERB in them is a random sample within the universe of hands DERB participated in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please see elindauer's post, he explains it better than I do.

Your analogy is flawed because you have chosen the 18-30 group before seeing the results. This is not a selection bias.

Re: WHAT IS DERBS SCREENAME ON PP???
 

Hi rigolleto,

Justin is right on here. Think more about what he's saying. I'll explain where your logic is off below.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We're doing the same here with DERB. His stats were chosen because of the bizarre results, therefore we cannot use confidence intervals to figure out whether or not he is a winning player. I hope all that made sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to disagree. Your objection would be true if we had say 1,000,000 hands with DERB and picked a 100K series out of them because this series was bizarre. But the fact that we chose to isolate all the hands where DERB was at the table doesn't bias HIS stats.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right that we haven't biased DERB's stats, but we are biased in selecting DERB to begin with. If DERB were a losing player, the way so many players who play like him are losers, than we wouldn't be talking about him. He is only interesting because his results are so good. This is why and how he was chosen. It's not like we said, let's pull out a random guy with 30/18 stats and analyze his play... oh look, DERB. No, it's, let's look for a statistical anomaly among the thousands of players I've tracked... hey, check out this guy!

[ QUOTE ]
You analogy is flawed because you are assuming that each player can be represented by the same coin. A more true analogy is to make 1000 cointosses with 1000 coins and the result is say 500,152/499,848. You record all tosses and what coin they where made with. Now you isolate your sample to a specific coin and find that the result for this coin is 611/389. You now have good reason to suspect that this particular coin is different from the others because the 1000 tosses with this coin can statistically be treated as a seperate event.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is only true if you choose the coin randomly. If you choose the coin precisely because it's the one with the most skewed stats, then you've biased the game and confidence intervals don't apply.

[ QUOTE ]
Let me try my own analogy: let say we randomly sample 4000 people and ask them who they would vote for as president Andyfox or Ed Miller and the result came back 50/50. Now we pick a subset, say ages 18-30, and for this subset the result is 30/70. Just because we picked a subset it doesn't mean that the sample is not random anymore; it is a random sample within the universe of 18-30 year olds. Just as hands with DERB in them is a random sample within the universe of hands DERB participated in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, your reasoning is accurate if you chose 18-30 randomly, and not because the results in that age group were abnormal.

Finally, let's say you flip 1 coin lots of times. You expect that a confidence interval will have 50/50 as well within the expected value for the coin. However, if you repeat the experiment many many times, eventually you are going to find a coin that comes up 5 standard deviations out. This isn't surprising, it's expected, and it doesn't make it 98% likely that the one lucky coin is biased. It's just a function of the large number of random variables. To get a feel for how likely it is that we would find someone so many standard devs out, we need to find out how many players are in the database that this guy was taken from. I bet the answer is... LOTS.

Good luck.
Eric

PS. It's also interesting to note that the average player with a decent number of hands in a database like this is going to be on the high side of the variance. You don't see guys with DERB's stats that are monster losers simply because a losing player that goes on a big downswing is likely to just quit. So guys with small numbers of hands will tend to be on the low side of the variance, while guys with large numbers of hands will be on the high side. Does that means playing lots of hands makes you lucky? No. It's just a biased sample.

Re: DERB
 

Can someone PM me this guy's Screen name for PP? I'm really interested in watching the guy even though I don't usually play at PP.

I took statistics back in college for a semester, and all this stuff about Z values, standard deviations, confidence intervals, and other stuff is bringing back some memories.

Either he's a cheater, or he's amazing. It's just statistically impossible to run THAT well over 150k hands if you're a bad player.

Re: DERB
 

I feel like eventually the amount of views of this post will become more than the hands in my database...
Just to add another worthless concept to a rediculous thread.

Re: Confidence intervals are not accurate here
 

[ QUOTE ]


In light of this, anecdotal evidence suggesting that DERB is bad is all you should need to be confident he is not a winner and is simply the luckiest player at party. This sounds unlikely until you remember how we chose this guy... we searched the database for the most ridiculous stats / win combination. Of course, this is likely to correspond to the luckiest guy.



[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you can use Baysean Statistical Inference to blend expert oppinion and data.

Also, you can quantify the liklihood that this is the result of survivor bias.

I think assuming this guy is a lottery winner based on intuition is not very rigorous, to say the least. Greater minds than ours thought and convinced the world that heavier objects fell faster than lighter ones because it was intuitively obvious.

Re: Confidence intervals are not accurate here
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With an SD of 30BB/100 hands ... interval is 2.8BB/100 at a 99.7% confidence... So the math tells us that he is likely a winner... it'll take more than some bad beat stories and a few hand histories before I'll write DERB of as a fluke.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi rigolleto,

Your math is off here, but it's subtle why it's wrong. The problem is the way you've selected the "random variable" to analyze.

Basically, there are hundreds, maybe thousands of guys with stats like DERB. All of these random variables have been sampled over and over, and then the very best performing one has been chosen and singled out. There is a huge selection bias here, so that it is extremely likely that DERB is in fact way on the high side of the variance. Since the confidence interval calculation you are making assumes it's equally likely he is on the high side as on the low side, it's invalid.

To give you a clearer picture, imagine you flipped a large number of pennies ten thousand times each. You record the results. Then you pick out the penny that came up heads most often and run a confidence interval analysis on it. You'll find that this analysis suggests it's extremely likely that this penny comes up heads more often than tails. Maybe it'll suggest that this penny is 99.7% likely to be weighted toward heads, to not be a fair coin. Obviously, this is not the case.

To make another analogy, it would be like taking any random bad player, and then throwing out 10% of the hands in which he did the worst. Oh look, he's a huge winner now. Yeah, of course.

In light of this, anecdotal evidence suggesting that DERB is bad is all you should need to be confident he is not a winner and is simply the luckiest player at party. This sounds unlikely until you remember how we chose this guy... we searched the database for the most ridiculous stats / win combination. Of course, this is likely to correspond to the luckiest guy.

To get a better idea of how DERB's true win rate, lump all the players with similar stats to his together and run a confidence interval analysis on the results. To get an even better idea, track his NEXT 100,000 hands or whatever, now that you've singled him out and do a confidence interval analysis on those hands. That's his true win rate.


Good luck.
Eric

[/ QUOTE ]

Great explanation!

Another thing to note is that the confidence interval is based on the assumption that BB/100 winrate follows a normal distribution, which isn't necessarily a good assumption.

Re: WHAT IS DERBS SCREENAME ON PP???
 

Hi Eric

Thank you for taking the time. It does look like I'm wrong on this, but if I'm learning that's all good. But I still need to wrap my brain around something:

Your assertions would also seem to imply that DERB can not run a confidence interval on his own stats. I mean, we have determined that confidence intervals doesn't apply. Let's for arguments sake assume that the 100K hands we are talking about are all the hands DERB has ever played; how can the confidence interval then apply to one analysis and not another.

Aren't we confusing a (very small) sample of players (only DERB) with the sample of hands. Granted there is a relationsship between his sample of hands and the key numbers we chose him from, but does this really mean that a sample of 100K hands are rendered meaningless just because we went looking for a LAG that is a winning player?

Let's imagine I where to look up 30/18 (or there about) players with a good winrate in a huge database and I find 100 of them. Now running a confidence interval on this sample of 100 players and their 4 key stats will tell me that they are likely winners because that's why I picked them (the confidence interval is meaningless like in your coin example). But when I look closer I find that 99 of these players stat's are based on less than 100 hands while one is based on 100K hands. Doesn't this make a difference! Intuition tells me that the key figures from the guy with 100K hands are more reliable than from the 100 hand guys. It also seems to me that doing a confidence interval on the 100 hand guys will tell us that they could be anywhere from big loosers to big winners, while the confidence interval on the 100K hands points to a winner.

I can't really find a good coin analogy for this one.

Just curious if this has anything to do with DERB
 

I might be way off here, but if a top tier professional...say Phil Ivey were to play 30/60 on PartyPoker, would he demolish the game? Or is the difference between the best 30/60 players on PartyPoker and Phil Ivey a very slim margin? If, by chance, DERB turns out to be a top tier professional, is it hard to believe he can play so many hands and still win? I'm just throwing out another possibility.

Re: WHAT IS DERBS SCREENAME ON PP???
 

"Your assertions would also seem to imply that DERB can not run a confidence interval on his own stats."

He can, but he would be using incomplete information to come to his conclusion. That's the problem. If he had no other knowledge of the situation other than his own win rate and SD, this would be his best bet. We are working with additional information. If you win 6-9 BB/hr with 99% confidence according to a Z-table, and no one else in the world wins more than 3 BB/hr, there is clearly greater than a 1% chance you win less than 6.

"but does this really mean that a sample of 100K hands are rendered meaningless just because we went looking for a LAG that is a winning player?"

They are not rendered meaningless. They are mitigated to a significant (but arguable in magnitude) extent.

Re: WHAT IS DERBS SCREENAME ON PP???
 

Thanks! I appreciate it!

Re: WHAT IS DERBS SCREENAME ON PP???
 

I think comparing Loj to someone with his preflop stats is of very limited use. He has a very distint style of play and is certainly not your average donk. Much like there are a lot of donkeys who play with "good" preflop stats.

-f

Re: WHAT IS DERBS SCREENAME ON PP???
 

If we really want to learn something about DERB what we need to do is look at his future hands from this point on. The data up to this point is what we used to select him, that data is biased. Future data is not.

If we flip 1000 coins 1000 times and have a coin that is 4-sigma away from the mean it may be an unfair coin, but because of selection bias we don't know (its in fact not shocking to have a coin 4-sigma out in this situation). To find out if the coin is fair we flip that coin another 1000 (or whatever) times and we can then apply a confidence interval to those results because they aren't biased.

So lets wait a few months and then look at DERBs data from today (or maybe the op date) and draw conclusions from that sample. That data won't suffer from selection bias.

Re: Just curious if this has anything to do with DERB
 

Personally I think the gap between top players and avg party players is much smaller in limit. In no-limit the skill factor can override the fact that he's paying extra SBs to call so many hands (30% vpip, right?) whereas in limit he can only earn so much per pot, so the extra bets lost would kill his winnings.

Re: Just curious if this has anything to do with DERB
 

I've been reading this thread for a while now, and I got frustrated enough that I had to register and post.

The coin analogy doesn't work.

When you use the coin analogy you are already assuming that DERB must be a losing player, or at the very least that he (or she) will, in the long run, have EXACTLY THE SAME results as everyone else with 30/18 stats. THIS is what is being debated, therefore you cannot begin your argument that he is a bad player by using analogies that assume he is as bad as the 30/18 players you're used to.

When you toss a coin, however many times, you know before tossing it that in the long run, the numbers will tend toward 50/50 because you know that there are only two potential results, and they are both equally likely.
DERB's play might very well not be anywhere close to what you're used to seeing with players with his stats. As has been discussed, there is a great deal more to a player's success than PT stats, and I think if anything is going to be figured out, this is the place to start.
So DERB could be a 2BB/100 winner on a hot streak, or he could still be that 5%, 1%, or 0.3% lottery winner (or a big fat cheater, but I've seen no evidence of that).

All I'm saying is that you CANNOT use the coin analogy because you are simply assuming that all players with DERB's stats - stats taken using a method that doesn't paint nearly a whole picture of how a player plays - will ALWAYS tend toward a certain BB/100.

You are basing your argument on your conclusion. This is fallacious.

My 2 cents, this is all very interesting.

-Matt

Re: WHAT IS DERBS SCREENAME ON PP???
 

[ QUOTE ]
If we really want to learn something about DERB what we need to do is look at his future hands from this point on. The data up to this point is what we used to select him, that data is biased. Future data is not.

[/ QUOTE ]


Dead on. I hope someone who knows who this guy is actually does this!

Re: WHAT IS DERBS SCREENAME ON PP???
 

[ QUOTE ]
Your assertions would also seem to imply that DERB can not run a confidence interval on his own stats.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes, I wrestled with this as well.

First of all, let's note that just because your confidence interval calculation is invalid, it doesn't mean that DERB is a loser. I happen to think it's likely he is a losing or break-even type player and he's on a major hotstreak, but I haven't given any proof of this. This is just speculation based on the few hands I've seen posted. All I've "proved" is that a confidence interval calculation is invalid in this instance when it comes to pinning down this guy's true win rate.


Ok, moving on. DERB of course chose his own stats randomly beforehand, so he does have an unbiased view of his own stats. So he believes, correctly, given the information he has, that he is 99.7% likely to be a winner.

I think the reason we can put him at a much lower percentage than this is that we have more information than DERB, or at least, than the hypothetical DERB that just naively runs a confidence interval on his play with no other thought. Here are the things we know that his simple calculation does not take into account:

1. he is the farthest outlier in a large sample of datamined players. This virtually guarantees that he is on the very high side of the variance. It's virtually impossible that this one guy has a true win rate ten times higher than anybody else and is running bad. Right? In his simple worldview, he is just as likely to have below average results as the very best.

2. we can analyze the hands he's playing and see that he's making substantial mistakes that aren't consistent with someone winning this much money. The poker information contained in the hands we see him play is much more convincing and "converges" much faster than the rather naive confidence interval calculation DERB is doing himself. I made another post on this a while ago. If you look at the hands and see that a player is making major mistakes, that's a much better indicator than a confidence interval of a player's true win rate. DERB is making these mistakes himself so he probably cannot recognize them as a major indicator that he is just one of the 1 in 600 players or so that will run this good, and not the world beater his confidence interval calculation suggests.

Hope that helps.
-Eric

Re: Just curious if this has anything to do with DERB
 

Hey, I don't even play 3/6 let alone 30/60 but since this thread has actually forced someone to register in order to post in it, I thought I would chime in, too. I think you're missing the point of the analogy. No one is saying that you have to assume that the coins are all fair before you do the experiment. Let's say that you take 1000 coins and you flip them each 1000 times and you DON'T know whether they are fair or not. If you take the one that lands on heads most and try to make an argument that it MUST be weighted to land on heads more often by building a confidence interval, that argument will be wrong. That argument will be wrong because even IF all of the coins were fair coins, you would STILL expect one of them to land on heads a lot more often than tails. And by selecting that particular one to analyse, you are biasing your analysis. So you can't construct a confidence interval around its results by (implicitly) assuming that it was randomly chosen. That is what the analogy is supposed to show: that having someone perform extraordinarily can be explained even IF they are no different from anyone else.

[ QUOTE ]
I've been reading this thread for a while now, and I got frustrated enough that I had to register and post.

The coin analogy doesn't work.

When you use the coin analogy you are already assuming that DERB must be a losing player, or at the very least that he (or she) will, in the long run, have EXACTLY THE SAME results as everyone else with 30/18 stats. THIS is what is being debated, therefore you cannot begin your argument that he is a bad player by using analogies that assume he is as bad as the 30/18 players you're used to.

When you toss a coin, however many times, you know before tossing it that in the long run, the numbers will tend toward 50/50 because you know that there are only two potential results, and they are both equally likely.
DERB's play might very well not be anywhere close to what you're used to seeing with players with his stats. As has been discussed, there is a great deal more to a player's success than PT stats, and I think if anything is going to be figured out, this is the place to start.
So DERB could be a 2BB/100 winner on a hot streak, or he could still be that 5%, 1%, or 0.3% lottery winner (or a big fat cheater, but I've seen no evidence of that).

All I'm saying is that you CANNOT use the coin analogy because you are simply assuming that all players with DERB's stats - stats taken using a method that doesn't paint nearly a whole picture of how a player plays - will ALWAYS tend toward a certain BB/100.

You are basing your argument on your conclusion. This is fallacious.

My 2 cents, this is all very interesting.

-Matt

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: WHAT IS DERBS SCREENAME ON PP???
 

[ QUOTE ]
I hate this thread so much I don't know why I'm posting in it but anyway...

Without writing a novel, Justin A is correct. If you simply take his win rate and SD you are ignoring selection bias. To get the best approximation, you must use all available information. This not only includes win rate, SD, and a Z-table, but also includes the more fuzzy idea that this player is being examined because of his win rate in the first place, and the anecdotal evidence that he plays like players who lose. If you have 1,000 players who play the same, one of them will have a higher win rate than the rest, and this will be significantly higher than the average. If you look at the sample of 1,000 and choose the highest win rate and then try to reverse engineer his true win rate using a confidence interval, you are going to get a very wrong answer because you are ignoring the information that he plays the same as the other 1,000 players. Of course this is not a direct analogy because no players play exactly the same, but you are making the same mistake as someone who chooses a mutual fund that showed a huge profit in the past year. If you put enough monkeys in front of enough typewriters, eventually one will type HPFAP. If, after this, you select the one who does and claim he is Mason Malmuth, you are of course wrong. Or are you? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

RIG I think its time to bow down!

Re: Just curious if this has anything to do with DERB
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hey, I don't even play 3/6 let alone 30/60 but since this thread has actually forced someone to register in order to post in it, I thought I would chime in, too. I think you're missing the point of the analogy. No one is saying that you have to assume that the coins are all fair before you do the experiment. Let's say that you take 1000 coins and you flip them each 1000 times and you DON'T know whether they are fair or not. If you take the one that lands on heads most and try to make an argument that it MUST be weighted to land on heads more often by building a confidence interval, that argument will be wrong. That argument will be wrong because even IF all of the coins were fair coins, you would STILL expect one of them to land on heads a lot more often than tails. And by selecting that particular one to analyse, you are biasing your analysis. So you can't construct a confidence interval around its results by (implicitly) assuming that it was randomly chosen. That is what the analogy is supposed to show: that having someone perform extraordinarily can be explained even IF they are no different from anyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with what you end with here, but MY POINT is that you DON'T know that he is "no different from anyone else." Additionally, I agree that you can't look at it as a completely isolated incident, but going to the other end of the spectrum and just assuming that the guy HAS to be a fluke is ignorant and teaches us nothing. If you're going base your argument and analysis on the assumption that he is just a bad player on a hot streak, then you're not going to learn why he might be beating the game in a different way that you are.

Respectfully,

Matt

Re: Just curious if this has anything to do with DERB
 

No one was using the coin example to prove that he was NOT a winner, it just illustrated how confidence intervals, as they were being used, can't prove that he IS a winner. The arguments that he is not a winner came from logical analysis of how he plays his hands.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hey, I don't even play 3/6 let alone 30/60 but since this thread has actually forced someone to register in order to post in it, I thought I would chime in, too. I think you're missing the point of the analogy. No one is saying that you have to assume that the coins are all fair before you do the experiment. Let's say that you take 1000 coins and you flip them each 1000 times and you DON'T know whether they are fair or not. If you take the one that lands on heads most and try to make an argument that it MUST be weighted to land on heads more often by building a confidence interval, that argument will be wrong. That argument will be wrong because even IF all of the coins were fair coins, you would STILL expect one of them to land on heads a lot more often than tails. And by selecting that particular one to analyse, you are biasing your analysis. So you can't construct a confidence interval around its results by (implicitly) assuming that it was randomly chosen. That is what the analogy is supposed to show: that having someone perform extraordinarily can be explained even IF they are no different from anyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with what you end with here, but MY POINT is that you DON'T know that he is "no different from anyone else." Additionally, I agree that you can't look at it as a completely isolated incident, but going to the other end of the spectrum and just assuming that the guy HAS to be a fluke is ignorant and teaches us nothing. If you're going base your argument and analysis on the assumption that he is just a bad player on a hot streak, then you're not going to learn why he might be beating the game in a different way that you are.

Respectfully,

Matt

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: WHAT IS DERBS SCREENAME ON PP???
 

[ QUOTE ]
RIG I think its time to bow down!

[/ QUOTE ]

I bow for no pokerplayer [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

By I do thank JV, Justin and Eric for the lessons.

Re: DERB
 

is it me? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: DERB
 

[ QUOTE ]
is it me? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

are you asking if you are DERB? If so, PM me your party handle and I will tell you.

Re: DERB
 

[ QUOTE ]

Either he's a cheater, or he's amazing. It's just statistically impossible to run THAT well over 150k hands if you're a bad player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im a stat undergrad / data mining grad student. this statement alone shows you dont really understand statistics. BTW if you cannot figure out his pp screen name then you have no business asking for it.

Edit: I appologize, Im a little drunk.

-Brad

Re: DERB
 

would someone be willing to write a quick thread summary? i mainly want to know if anyone has figured out what his deal is.

James---
 

James,

You seem to have played alot of hands vs this guy, whats your won from/lost to stats against him. I haven't seen anybody ever discuss this stat before so maybe its meaningless, I'm just curious if this guy is taking money from the TAGs as well as donks or just the donks.

Re: DERB
 

[ QUOTE ]
would someone be willing to write a quick thread summary? i mainly want to know if anyone has figured out what his deal is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Theres a bad player who was been winning at about 3bb/100 for about 100k hands. Some people think he cheats, others think he is good, others think he is breakeven or small winner running good, yet others think he is actually a losing player running good.

Andrew Prock is an idiot.

James282 rules.

NLSoldier rules too.

There was some argument about DERB's confidence interval regarding his winrate and Justin A and Elindauer showed why we cannot really use these confidence intervals to analyze DERB.

I think I got it all. Still no real conclusions.

edit-Oh yeah, J V rules as well. Not only did he start this awesome thread, he also added some nice Vida pics [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: DERB
 

I have a question. How many other Party 30/60 players have stats of 3BB/100 or more over 100k hands? And what are their stats?

Re: DERB
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have a question. How many other Party 30/60 players have stats of 3BB/100 or more over 100k hands? And what are their stats?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have the answer but I'm sure James or J V or a lot of other people do.

Re: DERB
 

I really don't think this game is beatable for 3/100 longterm no matter what kind of stats you pull out. With the new influx of tables it's a completely different story. But the way these tables played out prior to that, I think 2/100'ish is where it maxes out.

Re: DERB
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

My W$WSF in the 30/60 is 44.7 with a W$SD just over 52, although I've been running well in that game myself. Your W$WSF should be pretty high in this game since so many pots are contested 2- and 3-handed.

[/ QUOTE ]

well now i see where i need to improve abit...maybe i'll move to the HUSH forum for a while...either that or stop being your slot machine.

44% is real good nate....im at 41.98.

-Barron

[/ QUOTE ]
Holy crap. Mine is only like 36% in the 15 game over 50K hands... I must be missing out on a ton of calldowns or something. Now I am freaked out.

Re: DERB
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

My W$WSF in the 30/60 is 44.7 with a W$SD just over 52, although I've been running well in that game myself. Your W$WSF should be pretty high in this game since so many pots are contested 2- and 3-handed.

[/ QUOTE ]

well now i see where i need to improve abit...maybe i'll move to the HUSH forum for a while...either that or stop being your slot machine.

44% is real good nate....im at 41.98.

-Barron

[/ QUOTE ]
Holy crap. Mine is only like 36% in the 15 game over 50K hands... I must be missing out on a ton of calldowns or something. Now I am freaked out.

[/ QUOTE ]

no, just a different game. of course you are going to win more often when there are less people to the flop.

Re: DERB
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's just statistically impossible to run THAT well over 150k hands if you're a bad player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Statistically improbable. There's no such thing as impossible in statistics.

Re: James---
 

[ QUOTE ]
James,

You seem to have played alot of hands vs this guy, whats your won from/lost to stats against him. I haven't seen anybody ever discuss this stat before so maybe its meaningless, I'm just curious if this guy is taking money from the TAGs as well as donks or just the donks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Without digging up the database from my backup files, I can tell you that since I got this computer(we have played 3.5k hands or so) - He has won 97 pots from me and I have won 86 pots from him. Over this stretch I am up 3,565.
-James

Re: DERB
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
is it me? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

are you asking if you are DERB? If so, PM me your party handle and I will tell you.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know?!?! PM it to me.

Re: DERB
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's just statistically impossible to run THAT well over 150k hands if you're a bad player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Statistically improbable. There's no such thing as impossible in statistics.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't mean to quibble, but there is something called statistically impossible in statistics. I don't remember off hand where that line is drawn. However, you're not necessarily wrong, it's just a definitions thing.

Re: DERB
 

[ QUOTE ]
With the new influx of tables it's a completely different story.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry to hijack the thread (only briefly!), but when did Party add all these new 30/60 tables? Thanks in advance.

How do you get this?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think you'll find that he extracts a lot postflop when he is ahead and looses if not minimum then far less when he is behind. Also look for his winrate when raising the turn! I'm pretty sure it'll be something like 70%.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can one get a winrate when raising the turn from PT? Is this fancy-schmancy add-on software/programming? Who can I nag to show me how to walk me through it/figure this out?